| 1 |
On Tuesday 14 May 2002 01:50 pm, Matthew Kennedy wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Hmmm... I had a LVM on RAID-0 disaster with JFS after a week which I |
| 4 |
> never had with ext3 or XFS (using thoses for months). Although I can't |
| 5 |
> prove it, I suspect JFS somehow caused the array to become corrupted. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> But JFS is pretty sweet if it works for you. It is about a zippy for |
| 8 |
> small files as reiserfs, while as fast as XFS for big sequencial |
| 9 |
> accesses. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
It sounds like there may be an LVM issue with JFS. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Just to clarify, I should note that in all my tests, on all my systems, I have |
| 14 |
not at any time made use of Linux Volume Management or software RAID of any |
| 15 |
kind. I have made use of hardware RAID in some instances, simple SCSI or IDE |
| 16 |
drives in others (and of course "poor man's RAID" in many instances, which |
| 17 |
basically entails a nightly, or weekly, dd of one disk to an identical |
| 18 |
mirror). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
For this reason all of the data points (reiser's consistently unreliable |
| 21 |
behavior over long periods of time, ext2 and XFS's excellent behavior, and |
| 22 |
JFS apparently good behavior) I've provided have NOT involved interaction |
| 23 |
with LVM. Indeed, I do not even compile support for LVM into the kernel as a |
| 24 |
rule. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I hesitate to spam a bunch of links here, but a simple google search on |
| 27 |
Reiserfs and data corruption in both the web and news.google.com search |
| 28 |
engines provide amply justification for Gentoo warning the unwary away from |
| 29 |
using reiser. That having been said, if people want to add some footnotes to |
| 30 |
some of those threads, and people's personal, anectdotal experiences, I don't |
| 31 |
think that would be a bad thing at all. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Removing the warning as some advocate would be, IMHO. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Jean. |
Archives